Is Goebbles running Fox/NBC/CNN?

I was cleaning the kitchen this afternoon and casually watching the Olympic coverage on NBC and a promo for Tom Brokaw's special, "Their Finest Hour"- some sure to be insipid paean to how lucky we are that we were saved by killing a bunch of people- when the following quote (paraphrased) about how "The United States was forced to enter WW2" caught my ear.Â

Even a casually skeptical reading of the actual history of the war, from the causes and the events leading up to the first shots, to the entry of the US due to the Lusitania, to the nuclear war crimes, to the final division of war spoils- I mean treaties- that ended it, leads a reasonable person to conclude that it was all for the petty ambitions of petty men in their attempts to control people they viewed as their lesser- domestically and internationally.Â

This is the kind of propaganda the average "informed viewer" (aka people that watch MSM documentaries and think they actually understand the subject) is subjected to daily.Â They think that since they know certain details that their narrative is correct, even though they can never refute specific critical aspects.

Infuriating.Â

Just wanted to vent.Â

by Anonymous

reply 59

11/18/2012

Tom Brokaw sits on the CFR and is a propagandist par excellence.

by Anonymous

reply 1

08/12/2012

OP, I agree with your central premise, but...

Have you ever studied history, or do you have any idea what the word "credibility" means?

The sinking of the Lusitania was part of World War I, not World War II.

by Anonymous

reply 2

08/12/2012

You're not exactly an "informed viewer" yourself, OP. It was the attack on Pearl Harbor which got the US into WWII. The Lusitania was torpedoed in 1915.

by Anonymous

reply 3

08/12/2012

OP may be on to something -- many believe that World War 2 was really the World War, Part 2.

by Anonymous

reply 4

08/12/2012

[quote]to the entry of the US due to the Lusitania

Why are you trying to discuss shit you obviously know nothing about?

by Anonymous

reply 5

08/12/2012

[quote]insipid paean

Wow, those are pretty big words for an idiot like you, OP. Did you figure out how to use a thesaurus today?

by Anonymous

reply 6

08/12/2012

Bogglingly misguided post, from the bungling of important detail to the overwrought hand-wringing.

Yes, there is a tendency to sentimentalize the war. The US participated in foul dealings. That's war. It ain't pretty.

Western Europe benefited tremendously from the US entering the war and Eastern Europe would have been much better off under US auspices in its aftermath. The end of World War II kicked off a vast chain of decolonization starting with India -- something that ended "spoils" for the world's empires. And the end of WWII rebuilt a prosperous and safe Japan. Believe me, if the shoe had been on the other foot, Hitler and Japan would have killed and enslaved millions more people. They were very clear about their aims.

R5 had it right.

by Anonymous

reply 7

08/12/2012

Whether you have a point or not, you're the guy I try to avoid at parties, OP.

by Anonymous

reply 8

08/12/2012

OP also misspelled "Goebbels."

by Anonymous

reply 9

08/12/2012

OP's been torpedoed by his own hand.

by Anonymous

reply 10

08/12/2012

I don't agree with much of OP's post, but I was working in the kitchen and heard that bit about the US being forced into the war. The sense of what they were saying bothered me too.

by Anonymous

reply 11

08/12/2012

"Forced into WWII" seems most often to be espoused by people who think FDR was just short of being the antichrist.

It runs on the conspiracy theory that FDR let Pearl Harbor happen so that we would have to enter the war.

They are usually idiots.

by Anonymous

reply 12

08/12/2012

People who are against us getting into WW2 need to read a history book and not get your education from Datalounge.

by Anonymous

reply 13

08/12/2012

OP Go back to the kitchen because obviously that's where your skills are.

by Anonymous

reply 14

08/12/2012

This had to be a troll post, right? Right?

by Anonymous

reply 15

08/12/2012

Goebbels' techniques, especially the Big Lie are used on Fox News. The difference being that Josef Goebbels was actually the head of the accurately named Propoganda Ministry instead of the hysterical "Fair & Balanced" News organization.

by Anonymous

reply 16

08/12/2012

R16- do you think the nominally "liberal" CNN is any less of an outlet for propaganda?

by Anonymous

reply 17

08/13/2012

ALL media is owned by SIX mega corporations. Of course it's run by Goebbels.

by Anonymous

reply 18

08/13/2012

R12

Pearl Harbor was not an accident, a mere failure of American intelligence, or a brilliant Japanese military coup. It was the result of a carefully orchestrated design, initiated at the highest levels of our government. According to a key memorandum eight steps were taken to make sure we would enter the war by this means. Pearl Harbor was the only way, leading officials felt, to galvanize the reluctant American public into action. This great question of Pearl Harbor--what did we know and when did we know it?--has been argued for years. At first, a panel created by FDR concluded that we had no advance warning and should blame only the local commanders for lack of preparedness. More recently, historians such as John Toland and Edward Beach have concluded that some intelligence was intercepted. Finally, just months ago, the Senate voted to exonerate Hawaii commanders Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short, after the Pentagon officially declared that blame should be "broadly shared." But no investigator has ever been able to prove that fore-knowledge of the attack existed at the highest levels.

Until now. After decades of Freedom of Information Act requests, Robert B. Stinnett has gathered the long-hidden evidence that shatters every shibboleth of Pearl Harbor. It shows that not only was the attack expected, it was deliberately provoked through an eight-step program devised by the Navy. Whereas previous investigators have claimed that our government did not crack Japan's military codes before December 7, 1941, Stinnett offers cable after cable of decryptions. He proves that a Japanese spy on the island transmitted information--including a map of bombing targets--beginning on August 21, and that government intelligence knew all about it. He reveals that Admiral Kimmel was prevented from conducting a routine training exercise at the eleventh hour that would have uncovered the location of the oncoming Japanese fleet. And contrary to previous claims, he shows that the Japanese fleet did not maintain radio silence as it approached Hawaii. Its many coded cables were intercepted and decoded by American cryptographers in Stations on Hawaii and in Seattle.

The evidence is overwhelming. At the highest levels--on FDR's desk--America had ample warning of the pending attack. At those same levels, it was understood that the isolationist American public would not support a declaration of war unless we were attacked first. The result was a plan to anger Japan, to keep the loyal officers responsible for Pearl Harbor in the dark, and thus to drag America into the greatest war of her existence.

Yet even having found what he calls the "terrible truth," Stinnett is still inclined to forgive. "I sympathize with the agonizing dilemma faced by President Roosevelt," he writes. "He was forced to find circuitous means to persuade an isolationist America to join in a fight for freedom....It is easier to take a critical view of this policy a half century removed than to understand fully what went on in Roosevelt's mind in the year prior to Pearl Harbor."

by Anonymous

reply 19

08/13/2012

The assassination of JFK and 9/11 are perfect examples of The Big Lie.

People are too afraid to admit the ramifications of those acts being "inside jobs" even though immutable scientific truths disprove the official stories with absolute certainty.

by Anonymous

reply 20

08/13/2012

Good, R11- at least you are somewhat aware of the careful use of provocative language to make even questioning the history a heresy.

R2, I always conflate the "world wars" because the thread running from WW1 to 2 to Korea to Bay of Pigs to Viet Nam to Reagan/Bush (the former head of the CIA) and on to the initial occupation of Iraq is so easy to see once the proper point of view is established. I conflated the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor because of their inextricably linked nature- both were used as pretext for entering a war that did not involve US soil nor threat of invasion.

Yes, R9, so use that to tear down the whole thesis.

by Anonymous

reply 21

08/13/2012

"Western Europe benefited tremendously from the US entering the war and Eastern Europe would have been much better off under US auspices in its aftermath. The end of World War II kicked off a vast chain of decolonization starting with India -- something that ended "spoils" for the world's empires. And the end of WWII rebuilt a prosperous and safe Japan. Believe me, if the shoe had been on the other foot, Hitler and Japan would have killed and enslaved millions more people. They were very clear about their aims."

This is the reason I posted this. Empty propagandistic assertions, backed by hobgoblins and supported by "normal" people.

You have no ideas other than what the tv feeds you.

by Anonymous

reply 22

08/13/2012

R19, there is no scholarly research combined with knowledgable analysis that backs up your conspiracy theory. Are you a Ron Paul supporter by any chance?

Simplistic analysis and a failure to understand the whole picture and the reality of what was going on at various levels lead to false assumptions and factual errors. Anyone can come up with crazy conspiracy theories if they cherry pick facts and don't understand aspects of the story.

For instance, your analysis of the intelligence capability and reality at the time is way off base. We did not have a clear picture at all of what was going on. In fact we were getting mixed messages about the possibility of a Japanese attack. Some of them the exact opposite. We were also seriously hampered by the lack of coordination and sharing of intelligence. Just like with 9/11, in hindsight we missed things because of the volume, the inability to sift through it all in time, the conflicting info, etc.

People hated FDR at the time and that hatred gave birith to this ridiculous idea that he knew and allowed it or worse made it happen. Some things never die. America Firsters started it and modern day conspiracists have resurrected it.

Shouldn't you be moving on to the Denver airport with the rest of the conspiracists?

by Anonymous

reply 23

08/13/2012

All of this criticism of the unfortunate OP nothwithstanding (we've all done it,) still ..

Goebbles

OH MY

or ach, mein guter Gott

by Anonymous

reply 24

08/13/2012

R21 - Pearl Harbor was US soil. Hawaii wasn't yet a state, but it was a territory. Japan attacked the United States. And btw, when we declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on us.

by Anonymous

reply 25

08/13/2012

[quote]I conflated the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor because of their inextricably linked nature- both were used as pretext for entering a war that did not involve US soil nor threat of invasion.

Wow, you just keep digging yourself in deeper. And btw, the United States entered the war two years after the sinking of the Lusitania. There was outrage over it, but people weren't yet ready to go to war over it.

What brought the US into the war was Germany's telegram to Mexico (known as the Zimmerman Telegram), promising Mexico all of the territory it had lost to the US in the Mexican-American War of 1848 if Mexico would join the Central Powers and attack the US.

by Anonymous

reply 26

08/13/2012

OP is Gore Vidal without the erudition, the wit, or the spellcheck. WWII was a Rooseveltian conspiracy and people who don't agree are sheeple beguiled by the TV.

by Anonymous

reply 27

08/13/2012

An excerpt-

The United Statesâ 1917 entry into World War I represents one of the crucial turning points in American history. Its significance, however, scarcely exceeds modern Americaâs collective ignorance of it.

The war began for corporate America long before it started for the common man. Within two months of the conflictâs August 1914 beginning, Charles Schwab, president of Bethlehem Steel, one of the worldâs largest arms merchants, took a profitable trip to London. There, he secured orders from the British government for millions of artillery shells, as well as ten 500-ton submarines. Though the construction of such foreign vessels broke the law, Bethlehem proceeded with it and the Wilson administration did not stop them. The company earned $61 million in 1916, more than its combined gross revenues for the previous eight years.

"The Bethlehem story is a pithy summary of the evolution of the United States into a branch of the British armament industry during the thirty-two months of its neutrality," writes historian Thomas Fleming in his powerhouse bookÂ The Illusion of Victory: America in World War I. "Wilson talked â and talked and talked â about neutrality and apparently convinced himself that he was neutral. But the United States he was supposedly running was not neutral, in thought, word or deed, thanks to Wellington House (the engine of British government propaganda) â and the international banking firm of J. P. Morgan in New York."

By the time America declared war on Germany, Morgan was having a bang-up war of its own. The company had already loaned Britain and France $2.1 billion (around $30 billion by 2004 standards), and had cleared $30 million â around $425 million in 2004 dollars â in profit.

Fleming summarizes a very effective partnership: "As British and French orders for ammunition and other war materiel filled the books of U.S. companies, the pressure for financial assistance to pay for them grew more and more acute." In other words, the more intense the fighting, the more arms, ordnance, and supplies the British and French ordered from American manufacturers, and the more money they borrowed from American banks.

WAR DRUMS IN AMERICA

The well-publicized May, 1915, German sinking of the British ocean linerÂ LusitaniaÂ is typically cited as one of a series of outrages to which President Woodrow Wilson reacted with restraint and patience. Eventually, so the story goes, even Wilson, a devout, peace-loving man, was forced to make war upon the Germans in order to protect the people and land of America. Yet few in America at the time suggested the nation should go to war because of the sinking of "a British ship flying a British flag." In fact, that British ship carried over four million rifle cartridges and 1,250 cases of shrapnel shells â destined for use against German soldiers.

"A ship carrying contraband should not rely on passengers to protect her from attack," wrote Wilsonâs own Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan. "It would be like putting women and children in front of an army." Bryan presciently feared that Wilsonâs orders to balloon the size and firepower of the American military would multiply the chances of the country finding a war in which to involve them.

It is interesting to note what was and what was not told the American passengers who perished on theLusitania,Â which embarked from New York. They were told by the Germans, in full page newspaper ads in theÂ New York TimesÂ and elsewhere, that boarding a British ship heading into the war zone would place them at risk. They were not told by the British that the ship was a virtual floating munitions dump.

For at least one British leader, losses such as the sinking of theÂ LusitaniaÂ were perhaps no great tragedy in the larger context of the war. "It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany," First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill wrote. The more neutral "traffic" the better, he insisted, and "If some of it gets into trouble, better still."

It was the first of two World Wars in which Churchill would exert the full strength of his being to drag America into the conflict in order to preserve victory for the British.

Overlooked by most "popular" historians is the brutal toll taken on the men, women, children, and aged of Germany by actions given the antiseptic term "naval blockade." Hundreds of thousands of Germans starved to death or perished due to other malnutrition-related maladies during the war because Britain and her allies would not let supplies and food into Germany or even into Europe in many cases. Hundreds of thousands of others suffered serious or debilitating illnesses. This was the context in which the Germans launched their submarine warfare against ships traveling into British waters.

by Anonymous

reply 28

08/13/2012

There wasn't outrage over the Black Tom explosion but there should have been.

by Anonymous

reply 29

08/13/2012

Now for ten extra idiot points, try to connect the sinking of the Lusitania to the 9/11 truthers.

by Anonymous

reply 30

08/13/2012

R19- sheesh. At the time of Pearl Harbor the President, his cabinet and Chiefs of Staff, Churchill et al knew Japan was about to attack the West- they just did not know where or how. As it turned out it was the Phillipeans (sp?) the day after Pearl Harbor. And why? Because after their invasion of China and Southeast Asia the US embargoed their oil.

Point of the above is that even if Pearl Harbor had not happened- we would have gone to war anyway due to the second attack, the next day- which by the way cost vastly more lives. And if you know anything about WW2 history, well this is history 101 if you get my drift. Pearl Harbor was more or less a dramatic story, and essentially a failed attack if you realize that the most important targets where not at Pearl that morning (the American carriers)... that shortly thereafter won the Battle of Midway.)

R19- read a little legitimate history- written by those who really are expert historians with no gov't ax to grind and a few levels above frantic conspiracy theories.

by Anonymous

reply 31

08/13/2012

Isn't Lew Rockwell a sort of Lyndon LaRouche Holocaust denier type?

It may be true that bankers wanted to profit from war, but it is also true that Kaiser Wilhelm had a long history of behaving very aggressively toward his neighbors and looking for a pretext to fight, all the while blaming his enemies for starting the conflict -- Hitler did the exact same thing.

And it also can't hide the fact that the OP actually thought that the sinking of the Lusitania kicked off WWII, then shrilly castigated others for their ignorance. How sad.

by Anonymous

reply 32

08/13/2012

[quote] I conflated the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor

You didn't conflate them dear, you confused them. Conflate means to become one. They are not one and the same. They are different.

by Anonymous

reply 33

08/13/2012

Every war we've been in since WWI is a continuation of WWI. If we survive, historians will look at this century as own 100 Years War.

by Anonymous

reply 34

08/13/2012

No, R33, I meant conflate. Anyone who can separate the events of WW1&2 and fail to see their inextricable links is a fool.

by Anonymous

reply 35

08/13/2012

Obviously, you are that very fool

by Anonymous

reply 36

08/13/2012

The air is thick with idiot Libertarians.

by Anonymous

reply 37

08/13/2012

Most people don't realize that the attack on the Philippines pretty much destroyed our army air forces. Pearl did not destroy our navy by any means. They were just beginning to build up the USAAF in the face of an expected war.

My dad was at Clark with his plane at the time of the attack and was coming from the quonset hut mess to check his plane. He said he was between the hut and the planes when the bombs started falling. I got him to talk about what happened that day and other things from his military career and I'm sorry I didn't get him to talk more about the war before he died. History lost and now I am fascinated by it too late.

Just the week before Pearl Harbor, Life magazine featured a beautiful photo of a B-17 in flight (my dad's plane) on its cover and the issue was about trying to build up the military in preparation for war. It is a very interesting read - congress, the Japanese, etc. You had to be an idiot or a deluded America Firster not to realize we would end up in war. As soon as Germany started its march in fall of 1939 what else was there to think or do? It made my dad enlist in May 1940 - 18 months before Pearl.

One of the things my dad told me about Dec 7-8 was that all that morning his superior was furious and screaming that MacArthur refused to allow them to take the planes up and head to Formosa to bomb where they thought the planes had come from or would be coming from. I think MacArthur either had a mini-nervous breakdown or was furiously trying to protect his assets before an attack or before war was declared. I don't trust that he was acting without self-interest.

by Anonymous

reply 38

08/13/2012

Does anyone really believe- even with footholds in Hawaii, Mexico, Canada, Cuba, and even in LA AND NYC- that the Germans, Italians and Japanese could have "conquered" America?

No.

It's the same problem we are facing in Iraq and Afghanistan- countries smaller than Texas when combined. There are too many ways for guerilla forces to sabatoge occupying armies.

The problem is that we have given our own government the power to occupy and control us, and they are much more effective than the Nazis because fools like most of the posters here support them- fervently. They used entering these wars (all of them) to strangle civil liberties domestically and build military power abroad to enforce the will of our corporate masters.

by Anonymous

reply 39

08/13/2012

R23, why did Clinton do this?

----

At issue is American foreknowledge of Japanese military plans to attack Hawaii by a submarine and carrier force 59 years ago. There are two questions at the top of the foreknowledge list: (1) whether President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his top military chieftains provoked Japan into an "overt act of war" directed at Hawaii, and (2) whether Japanâs military plans were obtained in advance by the United States but concealed from the Hawaiian military commanders, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter Short so they would not interfere with the overt act.

The latter question was answered in the affirmative on October 30, 2000, when President Bill Clinton signed into law, with the support of a bipartisan Congress, the National Defense Authorization Act. Amidst its omnibus provisions, the Act reverses the findings of nine previous Pearl Harbor investigations and finds that both Kimmel and Short were denied crucial military intelligence that tracked the Japanese forces toward Hawaii and obtained by the Roosevelt Administration in the weeks before the attack.

Congress was specific in its finding against the 1941 White House: Kimmel and Short were cut off from the intelligence pipeline that located Japanese forces advancing on Hawaii. Then, after the successful Japanese raid, both commanders were relieved of their commands, blamed for failing to ward off the attack, and demoted in rank.

President Clinton must now decide whether to grant the request by Congress to restore the commanders to their 1941 ranks. Regardless of what the Commander-in-Chief does in the remaining months of his term, these congressional findings should be widely seen as an exoneration of 59 years of blame assigned to Kimmel and Short.

by Anonymous

reply 40

08/13/2012

I've always been a bit of a history buff - studied modern history at undergraduate level at university -

but nothin' is as much fun as Datalounge History 101!

What an amazing mix from thoughtful and informed - to downright sill, crazy, paranoid & off the wall!

More please! Love it!

by Anonymous

reply 41

08/13/2012

OP is a certifiable loon. And a woefully misinformed one at that.

by Anonymous

reply 42

08/13/2012

R42-

Do you think the US has used propaganda, assassinated foreign leaders, funded "rebel groups" and declared war under false pretext hundreds of times over the last 2 centuries?

If so, does that inform your understanding of history (and the victorious leaders) and lead you to think that most of them were based on petty and selfish aims?

by Anonymous

reply 43

08/13/2012

They didn't watch north of Hawaii which is the only place an attack could easily develop. Draw your own conclusions. Also there were no flattops in Pearl Harbor at the time, and that was the key strategic weapon. Battleships: expendable.

by Anonymous

reply 44

08/13/2012

R31 is an example of the facile knowledge I was talking about.

Charlie, the US had illegally, and in violation of maritime standards of conduct for "neutral" powers, blockaded Japan and responded belligerently to diplomacy (due to the massive influence of corporate and banking magnates who had a vested interest in the UK/France and the arms business) and provoked war as surely as 9/11 was "blowback" for a century of meddlesomeness and murder in the middle east.

The administration knew the attacks would come, and would galvanize an ignorant and gullible populace.

by Anonymous

reply 45

08/13/2012

Aw jeez, it's that Lew Rockwell loon again.

by Anonymous

reply 46

08/13/2012

OP proves sucking cock, can make you turn idiot. What a stupid fuck.

by Anonymous

reply 47

08/13/2012

I tihnk OP has some valid observations, though clumsily phrased.

by Anonymous

reply 48

08/13/2012

You're a silly cunt

by Anonymous

reply 49

08/21/2012

Thank you.

by Anonymous

reply 50

08/21/2012

So what would make you happy OP? The petty men with petty ambitions stay out of the war. Hitler keeps Poland, conquers France, possibly takes Britain, and annexes at least part of Russia. Japan takes China, the Philippines, and possibly Australia. Hitler kills all remaining undesirables and enslaves/slaughters millions, just as he openly swore to do.

Desirable scenario for you?

by Anonymous

reply 51

08/21/2012

R51-

Hitler got elected because the Allied Powers destroyed Germany and then made it impossible for them to ever repay the reparations.

His vision for a socialist utopia would have collapsed (just like the USSR) without a shot being fired by the US or UK.

Instead we wasted billions and killed millions.

Are you even capable of independent thought?

by Anonymous

reply 52

08/21/2012

Smedley Butler on Interventionism

-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

by Anonymous

reply 53

08/22/2012

"His vision for a socialist utopia would have collapsed (just like the USSR) without a shot being fired by the US or UK."

And countries like France and Britain are just supposed to stand by, be devoured, and wait 60 years for the experiment to collapse?

"Are you capable of independent thought?"

Are you capable of common sense?

by Anonymous

reply 54

09/17/2012

Having failed so far to put Mitt Romney over by crude favoritism, they are going to redouble their efforts. NBC is planning to a big series of stories on the National Debt, for example.

by Anonymous

reply 55

09/17/2012

R54, do you think that the people of Britain and France wouldn't act the same way that the Iraqis and Afghanis are acting today?

Occupying a country is one thing. Making them love you requires decades of subtlety.

Look at how well the Russians fared in their imperial ambitions.

God, public schools have made you too stupid to breathe.

by Anonymous

reply 56

09/25/2012

France was conquered by the Nazis in short order, Britain was heavily bombed, and millions of Russians died. Not to mention Jews. Can't you even admit that Hitler caused a lot of trouble and death?

Calling someone a public school person is a cheap shot and in my case inaccurate. I have read books by Cambridge historian Richard Evans, Russian historian Dmitri Volkogonov, and Columbia University historian Mark Mazower. Also John Keegan and Anthony Beevor. All have solid credentials and like me are content that Hitler was defeated.

You are someone who couldn't spell Goebbels properly and confused the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor.

by Anonymous

reply 57

11/17/2012

France was betrayed from within by Nazis in the high military command.

Get theDL Delivered - recaps of your favorite topics delivered to your email inbox twice a week. It's easy to subscribe and even easier to unsubscribe when you want to. Give it a try! It's free so why not? (Click Here for a sample.)

Choose which channels you want to receive (uncheck all to unsubscribe)

Gossip

Entertainment

Politics

Important: Once you save your settings the first time you will receive a confirmation email. Please check your mail and click on the link in the email to complete your subscription.

No, we will not share your email address with anyone or send you spam.